Social Media, Smartphones Isolate Kids: Beneficial or Detrimental?

In his new book, psychologist Jonathan Haidt delves into the troubling paradigm of increasing childhood anxiety and declining birthrates. His research is met with criticism from a host of commentators who argue that smartphones and social media platforms such as TikTok are harmless for children. 
 
One such critic is editor Mike Masnick at the Daily Beast. In his article titled "The Coddling of the American Parent," he asserts that blaming technology absolves parents of their perceived shortcomings in raising children. Interestingly, after positioning himself against parents in defense of social media, Masnick highlights how it can be beneficial to young people struggling within their local communities or families. 
 
He cites multiple studies demonstrating how LGBT youth heavily rely on social media as an invaluable resource. He argues that removing this lifeline could potentially cause harm. 
 
Masnick's critique extends to Haidt's support for the "Kids Online Safety Act." The bill has been endorsed by several Democrats, including President Joe Biden. However, it has faced backlash from LGBT groups due to its potential misuse in censoring LGBT content online—a real harm, according to them. 
 
Tech columnist Taylor Lorenz also voices her concern about this bill, stating, "The bill could cut kids off from crucial information online about basically any controversial topic like abortion, gender-affirming care, substance abuse, etc.." 
 
It raises a pertinent question: should 13-year-olds source information about sensitive topics like abortion, sex changes, and drugs from platforms like TikTok? It seems unlikely that any rational individual or parent would agree with this proposition. 
 
While I cannot pass judgment on whether KOSA is indeed beneficial legislation or not, what stands out starkly are those individuals defending middle schoolers' presence on TikTok while advocating harmful ideologies such as gender theory. 
 
Social media excels at isolating users and extracting them from their real-life communities; for children specifically, they learn to disregard parental authority along with community norms through these platforms. This disturbing trend seems to be the reason behind some people's defense of children’s involvement on social media. 
 
In an era where childhood anxiety is skyrocketing and birth rates are plummeting, we need to carefully assess the impact of technology on our children. Rather than outright dismissing or endorsing it, we should strive for a balanced approach that safeguards our children without isolating them from essential resources. 
 
As parents and responsible adults, we must ensure that digital platforms serve as tools for education and growth rather than catalysts for dangerous ideologies or sources of misinformation. 
 
The debate surrounding Haidt's work highlights this pressing need. While critics may argue about smartphones' harmlessness or otherwise, what remains clear is the urgent requirement for effective measures in regulating children’s exposure to online content. 
 
Overall, whether one sides with Haidt or his critics, there can be no denying that childhood has become more complicated due to technological advancements. The challenge now lies in ensuring these developments enhance their lives instead of adding undue stress and anxiety.